The Daily episode on the housing crisis

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Nothing will help. Any new affordable-level housing, poor immigrants will move into them. Any new housing in nice middle class neighborhoods, richer immigrants on the hunt for "good school" will move in.

What's wrong with immigrants, PP?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no housing crisis, there is only an entitlement crisis. People expect houses to be way larger than before, they want fancy kitchens, his and hers closets, a separate bedroom for each child. Expectations have become completely detached from what the average person can realistically afford. This is a giant ruse by developers and the real estate lobby.

This is wrong because we actively want a small starter home and don't care about big closets or a bunch of bathrooms or a big kitchen. We are fine with something 1200-1600 ft and don't need it to be updated. But what I'm describing will cost you 500-600k in the DC area. There are a handful of places where you can get it for under 500k but they have horrible schools and we want at least okay schools.

The problem is that houses like that haven't been built in 30 or more years builders can make a lot more off high end, huge homes). The ones that are out there get gobbled up by developers who will tear them down and replace with a 1.5m new build. And the demand for land by these developers drives up the price across the board. If you can even get one of these houses at all-- lots of people coming in with all cash offers or willing to waive contingencies because they intend to tear it down anyway.

So yeah actually there is a housing shortage that is unrelated to some people wanting extravagant houses that are also magically cheap.

You are living in fantasy land. It's not even possible to build a new house that is 1600 sq feet for under 500k anymore in an area like DC. Even if the land were free you would not be able to find someone to build you a house for this price, (including site prep). Also, the median household income in the DC metro area is high enough to afford something that cost 500-600k, so it is not realistic to make a below average income for this area and expect to be able to afford to live in a the best school district.

The average cost in the US is $150/square foot, so $240k for 1600 square feet.

When you say an area like DC…do you really mean DC…or are you including say Germantown or somewhere in Loudon?

You cannot build a 1600 sq ft house in the DC metro area for $150 per Sq foot. This 1400sq ft home here has a base price of 320k. The base price does not include the foundation, site prep, driveway, permits/utility connections, permit fees. You still need to buy actual land to put the house one. The base price for this house is $230/sq ft and that does not include site prep which will be at least 50k, foundation is going to be another 50k+ depending on site conditions. Then add another 10k for the driveway and 10-20k for permits. 15k for utility set-up This 1400sq ft house now cost a minimum of 445k to builder grade quality finishes and no upgrades. Don't forget the real estate recordation and transfer taxes which will add around another 2.5k in northern Virginia. Then you also need to include mortgage recordation taxes which will be around 1.5k. and another 10k for loan closing costs. So the absolute cheapest possible that you can purchase this house in NOVA (ignoring the cost of land) is around 460k. There is nowhere in NOVA where you can buy land to build a house for 40k. Even a 1/8th or 1/6th acre lot will cost you more than 40k. It is literally impossible to build a house 1600 sq foot house for under 500k in NOVA. The economics just don't work, due to increasingly stringent energy efficiency standards/building codes, higher costs of materials.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nothing will help. Any new affordable-level housing, poor immigrants will move into them. Any new housing in nice middle class neighborhoods, richer immigrants on the hunt for "good school" will move in.

What's wrong with immigrants, PP? [/quote

What, I am required to say immigration is great? You have your opinion I have mine. Deal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no housing crisis, there is only an entitlement crisis. People expect houses to be way larger than before, they want fancy kitchens, his and hers closets, a separate bedroom for each child. Expectations have become completely detached from what the average person can realistically afford. This is a giant ruse by developers and the real estate lobby.

This is wrong because we actively want a small starter home and don't care about big closets or a bunch of bathrooms or a big kitchen. We are fine with something 1200-1600 ft and don't need it to be updated. But what I'm describing will cost you 500-600k in the DC area. There are a handful of places where you can get it for under 500k but they have horrible schools and we want at least okay schools.

The problem is that houses like that haven't been built in 30 or more years builders can make a lot more off high end, huge homes). The ones that are out there get gobbled up by developers who will tear them down and replace with a 1.5m new build. And the demand for land by these developers drives up the price across the board. If you can even get one of these houses at all-- lots of people coming in with all cash offers or willing to waive contingencies because they intend to tear it down anyway.

So yeah actually there is a housing shortage that is unrelated to some people wanting extravagant houses that are also magically cheap.

You are living in fantasy land. It's not even possible to build a new house that is 1600 sq feet for under 500k anymore in an area like DC. Even if the land were free you would not be able to find someone to build you a house for this price, (including site prep). Also, the median household income in the DC metro area is high enough to afford something that cost 500-600k, so it is not realistic to make a below average income for this area and expect to be able to afford to live in a the best school district.

The average cost in the US is $150/square foot, so $240k for 1600 square feet.

When you say an area like DC…do you really mean DC…or are you including say Germantown or somewhere in Loudon?

You cannot build a 1600 sq ft house in the DC metro area for $150 per Sq foot. This 1400sq ft home here has a base price of 320k. The base price does not include the foundation, site prep, driveway, permits/utility connections, permit fees. You still need to buy actual land to put the house one. The base price for this house is $230/sq ft and that does not include site prep which will be at least 50k, foundation is going to be another 50k+ depending on site conditions. Then add another 10k for the driveway and 10-20k for permits. 15k for utility set-up This 1400sq ft house now cost a minimum of 445k to builder grade quality finishes and no upgrades. Don't forget the real estate recordation and transfer taxes which will add around another 2.5k in northern Virginia. Then you also need to include mortgage recordation taxes which will be around 1.5k. and another 10k for loan closing costs. So the absolute cheapest possible that you can purchase this house in NOVA (ignoring the cost of land) is around 460k. There is nowhere in NOVA where you can buy land to build a house for 40k. Even a 1/8th or 1/6th acre lot will cost you more than 40k. It is literally impossible to build a house 1600 sq foot house for under 500k in NOVA. The economics just don't work, due to increasingly stringent energy efficiency standards/building codes, higher costs of materials.

Right which is why there is a push to build higher density housing because there are still people in this area who need homes worth less than 500k. Whether they are buyers who cannot afford more than 500k or they are renters who need affordable rents. If if is no longer possible to build SFHs in this area that are affordable on a working or middle class income then you need to come up with other ways to house people with working and middle class incomes because you can't have a functional economy without people at these levels.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no housing crisis, there is only an entitlement crisis. People expect houses to be way larger than before, they want fancy kitchens, his and hers closets, a separate bedroom for each child. Expectations have become completely detached from what the average person can realistically afford. This is a giant ruse by developers and the real estate lobby.

This is wrong because we actively want a small starter home and don't care about big closets or a bunch of bathrooms or a big kitchen. We are fine with something 1200-1600 ft and don't need it to be updated. But what I'm describing will cost you 500-600k in the DC area. There are a handful of places where you can get it for under 500k but they have horrible schools and we want at least okay schools.

The problem is that houses like that haven't been built in 30 or more years builders can make a lot more off high end, huge homes). The ones that are out there get gobbled up by developers who will tear them down and replace with a 1.5m new build. And the demand for land by these developers drives up the price across the board. If you can even get one of these houses at all-- lots of people coming in with all cash offers or willing to waive contingencies because they intend to tear it down anyway.

So yeah actually there is a housing shortage that is unrelated to some people wanting extravagant houses that are also magically cheap.

You are living in fantasy land. It's not even possible to build a new house that is 1600 sq feet for under 500k anymore in an area like DC. Even if the land were free you would not be able to find someone to build you a house for this price, (including site prep). Also, the median household income in the DC metro area is high enough to afford something that cost 500-600k, so it is not realistic to make a below average income for this area and expect to be able to afford to live in a the best school district.

Right which is why we need to build more high density housing that makes a home of that size actually affordable. If builders aren't going to produce smaller starter homes as SFHs then we need more townhomes and condos that families can afford.

Because guess what -- "median household income" means that a huge number of people in this area make less than that. So if the only housing available to families in the area costs more than they can afford then you have a housing problem. And if you tell all those people to go move somewhere cheaper then who will you get to do all the many many jobs that pay below the median for the area.

It kind of sounds like you are the one who is living in a fantasyland. Also the prior post was a direct response to someone saying "well the problem is that everyone wants a giant new build with huge closets and luxury finishes" and here is someone saying "actually no I just want a starter home I can actually afford the mortgage on with my actual salary" and your respones is "well that's a fantasy you can't have that." Right. That's precisely the issue -- people can't even afford run down smaller older houses. So where do you propose they live.

Here is some "high density" housing you can afford in an area with "at least OK" schools. https://www.redfin.com/VA/Arlington/1220-N-Meade-St-22209/unit-7/home/167195876
https://www.redfin.com/VA/Arlington/1220-N-Meade-St-22209/unit-7/home/167195876

This is the same condo listed twice.

This is a 2 bedroom garden-level condo with no outdoor space (not even communal outdoor space) and a $538 per month condo fee. This could work for the right family (one kid or just very young kids or a single parent or two parents but neither works from home etc) but this is not what people mean when they say they are looking for family housing -- this unit is best suited for a professional single or couple or retirees.

Also as someone who has lived in a condo with a child I can tell you that it can work but it would be better in a community that was really geared toward families. It's hard living somewhere with and active kid when your neighbors expect essentially total silence at all times.

Same person as before that sent you the condo link. Yes, I agree with you on this that condos are not very family friendly and it's beneficial for kids to have a yard to play in. I just don't agree that the solution is to build a bunch a "high density housing" and eliminate single family zoning. The better solution is to create starter home single family neighborhoods in the suburbs that will be relatively more affordable with 5,000-10,000 sq ft lots. Townhouses can be good options for families too, but housing that is higher density than around 8 units per acre should be close to transit and employment centers to prevent traffic congestion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no housing crisis, there is only an entitlement crisis. People expect houses to be way larger than before, they want fancy kitchens, his and hers closets, a separate bedroom for each child. Expectations have become completely detached from what the average person can realistically afford. This is a giant ruse by developers and the real estate lobby.

This is wrong because we actively want a small starter home and don't care about big closets or a bunch of bathrooms or a big kitchen. We are fine with something 1200-1600 ft and don't need it to be updated. But what I'm describing will cost you 500-600k in the DC area. There are a handful of places where you can get it for under 500k but they have horrible schools and we want at least okay schools.

The problem is that houses like that haven't been built in 30 or more years builders can make a lot more off high end, huge homes). The ones that are out there get gobbled up by developers who will tear them down and replace with a 1.5m new build. And the demand for land by these developers drives up the price across the board. If you can even get one of these houses at all-- lots of people coming in with all cash offers or willing to waive contingencies because they intend to tear it down anyway.

So yeah actually there is a housing shortage that is unrelated to some people wanting extravagant houses that are also magically cheap.

You are living in fantasy land. It's not even possible to build a new house that is 1600 sq feet for under 500k anymore in an area like DC. Even if the land were free you would not be able to find someone to build you a house for this price, (including site prep). Also, the median household income in the DC metro area is high enough to afford something that cost 500-600k, so it is not realistic to make a below average income for this area and expect to be able to afford to live in a the best school district.

The average cost in the US is $150/square foot, so $240k for 1600 square feet.

When you say an area like DC…do you really mean DC…or are you including say Germantown or somewhere in Loudon?

You cannot build a 1600 sq ft house in the DC metro area for $150 per Sq foot. This 1400sq ft home here has a base price of 320k. The base price does not include the foundation, site prep, driveway, permits/utility connections, permit fees. You still need to buy actual land to put the house one. The base price for this house is $230/sq ft and that does not include site prep which will be at least 50k, foundation is going to be another 50k+ depending on site conditions. Then add another 10k for the driveway and 10-20k for permits. 15k for utility set-up This 1400sq ft house now cost a minimum of 445k to builder grade quality finishes and no upgrades. Don't forget the real estate recordation and transfer taxes which will add around another 2.5k in northern Virginia. Then you also need to include mortgage recordation taxes which will be around 1.5k. and another 10k for loan closing costs. So the absolute cheapest possible that you can purchase this house in NOVA (ignoring the cost of land) is around 460k. There is nowhere in NOVA where you can buy land to build a house for 40k. Even a 1/8th or 1/6th acre lot will cost you more than 40k. It is literally impossible to build a house 1600 sq foot house for under 500k in NOVA. The economics just don't work, due to increasingly stringent energy efficiency standards/building codes, higher costs of materials.

Right which is why there is a push to build higher density housing because there are still people in this area who need homes worth less than 500k. Whether they are buyers who cannot afford more than 500k or they are renters who need affordable rents. If if is no longer possible to build SFHs in this area that are affordable on a working or middle class income then you need to come up with other ways to house people with working and middle class incomes because you can't have a functional economy without people at these levels.

High density is fine if people can actually walk to the metro station and they won't need to drive much. However, high density can be a disaster in low density suburban areas that have no meaningful access to transit. A single apartment complex with 40 units per acre can completely overwhelm local infrastructure in an area that is not transit accessible to walkable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no housing crisis, there is only an entitlement crisis. People expect houses to be way larger than before, they want fancy kitchens, his and hers closets, a separate bedroom for each child. Expectations have become completely detached from what the average person can realistically afford. This is a giant ruse by developers and the real estate lobby.

This is wrong because we actively want a small starter home and don't care about big closets or a bunch of bathrooms or a big kitchen. We are fine with something 1200-1600 ft and don't need it to be updated. But what I'm describing will cost you 500-600k in the DC area. There are a handful of places where you can get it for under 500k but they have horrible schools and we want at least okay schools.

The problem is that houses like that haven't been built in 30 or more years builders can make a lot more off high end, huge homes). The ones that are out there get gobbled up by developers who will tear them down and replace with a 1.5m new build. And the demand for land by these developers drives up the price across the board. If you can even get one of these houses at all-- lots of people coming in with all cash offers or willing to waive contingencies because they intend to tear it down anyway.

So yeah actually there is a housing shortage that is unrelated to some people wanting extravagant houses that are also magically cheap.

You are living in fantasy land. It's not even possible to build a new house that is 1600 sq feet for under 500k anymore in an area like DC. Even if the land were free you would not be able to find someone to build you a house for this price, (including site prep). Also, the median household income in the DC metro area is high enough to afford something that cost 500-600k, so it is not realistic to make a below average income for this area and expect to be able to afford to live in a the best school district.

Right which is why we need to build more high density housing that makes a home of that size actually affordable. If builders aren't going to produce smaller starter homes as SFHs then we need more townhomes and condos that families can afford.

Because guess what -- "median household income" means that a huge number of people in this area make less than that. So if the only housing available to families in the area costs more than they can afford then you have a housing problem. And if you tell all those people to go move somewhere cheaper then who will you get to do all the many many jobs that pay below the median for the area.

It kind of sounds like you are the one who is living in a fantasyland. Also the prior post was a direct response to someone saying "well the problem is that everyone wants a giant new build with huge closets and luxury finishes" and here is someone saying "actually no I just want a starter home I can actually afford the mortgage on with my actual salary" and your respones is "well that's a fantasy you can't have that." Right. That's precisely the issue -- people can't even afford run down smaller older houses. So where do you propose they live.

Here is some "high density" housing you can afford in an area with "at least OK" schools. https://www.redfin.com/VA/Arlington/1220-N-Meade-St-22209/unit-7/home/167195876
https://www.redfin.com/VA/Arlington/1220-N-Meade-St-22209/unit-7/home/167195876

This is the same condo listed twice.

This is a 2 bedroom garden-level condo with no outdoor space (not even communal outdoor space) and a $538 per month condo fee. This could work for the right family (one kid or just very young kids or a single parent or two parents but neither works from home etc) but this is not what people mean when they say they are looking for family housing -- this unit is best suited for a professional single or couple or retirees.

Also as someone who has lived in a condo with a child I can tell you that it can work but it would be better in a community that was really geared toward families. It's hard living somewhere with and active kid when your neighbors expect essentially total silence at all times.

Same person as before that sent you the condo link. Yes, I agree with you on this that condos are not very family friendly and it's beneficial for kids to have a yard to play in. I just don't agree that the solution is to build a bunch a "high density housing" and eliminate single family zoning. The better solution is to create starter home single family neighborhoods in the suburbs that will be relatively more affordable with 5,000-10,000 sq ft lots. Townhouses can be good options for families too, but housing that is higher density than around 8 units per acre should be close to transit and employment centers to prevent traffic congestion.

Right but another poster just went into detail as to why it's not possible to build single family houses at an affordable price point in this area -- cost of land and cost of materials and cost of labor. This is why developers focus on either building large homes on smaller lots (maximize land costs by packing in as much square footage as possible to sell at a higher price point) or building condos. This is how you make money in a place with expensive land costs.

I think if you want to build more affordable housing that works for families you need government incentives and intervention. Because if developers just follow the money it's luxury homes and small condos. But if you can incentivize the building of 2-4 bedroom homes (in whatever form) that are affordably priced and have family-friendly features (outdoor space and in walkable neighbors near schools and parks) then maybe that will become more desirable to developers.

[Anonymous]

In 2023, investors accounted for 27% of all single-family home purchases. Blackstone and American Homes 4 Rent are particularly active acquirers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no housing crisis, there is only an entitlement crisis. People expect houses to be way larger than before, they want fancy kitchens, his and hers closets, a separate bedroom for each child. Expectations have become completely detached from what the average person can realistically afford. This is a giant ruse by developers and the real estate lobby.

This is wrong because we actively want a small starter home and don't care about big closets or a bunch of bathrooms or a big kitchen. We are fine with something 1200-1600 ft and don't need it to be updated. But what I'm describing will cost you 500-600k in the DC area. There are a handful of places where you can get it for under 500k but they have horrible schools and we want at least okay schools.

The problem is that houses like that haven't been built in 30 or more years builders can make a lot more off high end, huge homes). The ones that are out there get gobbled up by developers who will tear them down and replace with a 1.5m new build. And the demand for land by these developers drives up the price across the board. If you can even get one of these houses at all-- lots of people coming in with all cash offers or willing to waive contingencies because they intend to tear it down anyway.

So yeah actually there is a housing shortage that is unrelated to some people wanting extravagant houses that are also magically cheap.

You are living in fantasy land. It's not even possible to build a new house that is 1600 sq feet for under 500k anymore in an area like DC. Even if the land were free you would not be able to find someone to build you a house for this price, (including site prep). Also, the median household income in the DC metro area is high enough to afford something that cost 500-600k, so it is not realistic to make a below average income for this area and expect to be able to afford to live in a the best school district.

Right which is why we need to build more high density housing that makes a home of that size actually affordable. If builders aren't going to produce smaller starter homes as SFHs then we need more townhomes and condos that families can afford.

Because guess what -- "median household income" means that a huge number of people in this area make less than that. So if the only housing available to families in the area costs more than they can afford then you have a housing problem. And if you tell all those people to go move somewhere cheaper then who will you get to do all the many many jobs that pay below the median for the area.

It kind of sounds like you are the one who is living in a fantasyland. Also the prior post was a direct response to someone saying "well the problem is that everyone wants a giant new build with huge closets and luxury finishes" and here is someone saying "actually no I just want a starter home I can actually afford the mortgage on with my actual salary" and your respones is "well that's a fantasy you can't have that." Right. That's precisely the issue -- people can't even afford run down smaller older houses. So where do you propose they live.

Here is some "high density" housing you can afford in an area with "at least OK" schools. https://www.redfin.com/VA/Arlington/1220-N-Meade-St-22209/unit-7/home/167195876
https://www.redfin.com/VA/Arlington/1220-N-Meade-St-22209/unit-7/home/167195876

This is the same condo listed twice.

This is a 2 bedroom garden-level condo with no outdoor space (not even communal outdoor space) and a $538 per month condo fee. This could work for the right family (one kid or just very young kids or a single parent or two parents but neither works from home etc) but this is not what people mean when they say they are looking for family housing -- this unit is best suited for a professional single or couple or retirees.

Also as someone who has lived in a condo with a child I can tell you that it can work but it would be better in a community that was really geared toward families. It's hard living somewhere with and active kid when your neighbors expect essentially total silence at all times.

Same person as before that sent you the condo link. Yes, I agree with you on this that condos are not very family friendly and it's beneficial for kids to have a yard to play in. I just don't agree that the solution is to build a bunch a "high density housing" and eliminate single family zoning. The better solution is to create starter home single family neighborhoods in the suburbs that will be relatively more affordable with 5,000-10,000 sq ft lots. Townhouses can be good options for families too, but housing that is higher density than around 8 units per acre should be close to transit and employment centers to prevent traffic congestion.

Right but another poster just went into detail as to why it's not possible to build single family houses at an affordable price point in this area -- cost of land and cost of materials and cost of labor. This is why developers focus on either building large homes on smaller lots (maximize land costs by packing in as much square footage as possible to sell at a higher price point) or building condos. This is how you make money in a place with expensive land costs.

I think if you want to build more affordable housing that works for families you need government incentives and intervention. Because if developers just follow the money it's luxury homes and small condos. But if you can incentivize the building of 2-4 bedroom homes (in whatever form) that are affordably priced and have family-friendly features (outdoor space and in walkable neighbors near schools and parks) then maybe that will become more desirable to developers.

They won't build that in walkable locations if you upzone the entire county or state. They will the more affordable units in completely unwalkable high density developments mostly in areas that are not close to things (because the land is much cheaper). Then the taxpayers will be forced to cover the cost of expanding roads, schools sewer and water infrastructure because they are trying to build a density that the community was not designed to accommodate. Zoning has to be very thoughtful about density and proximity to transit or you get economically inefficient sprawl because developers are not required to pay for (most of) the externalities related to their decisions. It costs Fairfax county around 90k per student to build new school capacity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In 2023, investors accounted for 27% of all single-family home purchases. Blackstone and American Homes 4 Rent are particularly active acquirers.

Source?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've wondered this. Most big cities have these massive, ugly, concrete apartments right on the outskirts for low income housing (think Paris or London). We could do this, but...it would tank any school that it's districted to. And then we'd have to throw massive amounts of money at that school to try to raise scores and it would still fail. And then both teachers as well as the county government would be blamed for having these failing schools. Also, when you have that much poverty centralized, it has that section 8 housing effect where a lot of crime moves in (the reason most US cities moved away from housing like that and give vouchers instead).

Instead they should move to more micro housing projects. Like every 10th lot is a low income apartment (and don't permit more than 1 car per apartment to be registered in the state or parked). Every school would get a certain percentage of failing students and would have more resources to help them. Cap it at 25 or 30%.

Or maybe we could have low income apartment housing but only allow people without children to move in to limit any effect on schools. Massive complexes for those without kids. It would help those with kids too because it would free up other housing for them.

Some of these are pretty good ideas. The issue is that land use/zoning is controlled as such local levels in the US, and housing is a regional issue (and somewhat national, as discussed above). You have a prisoners dilemma problem when trying to coordinate across jurisdictions.

Researcher here. The bolded is exactly right.

It drives me crazy when people blame the federal govt or when candidates pretend they can do something. These are local issues. Zoning is a major factor. Look at DC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Did they bother to address the fact that housing has become commoditized thanks to corporations, hedge funds, and regular people like you and me buying multiple homes and renting them out (whether as airbnbs or more traditional rental properties)? Because that’s the real culprit. Hedge funds and corporations own entire neighborhoods in certain areas. They literally come in a buy up nearly an entire new development and then have the power to set the new fair market value.

What about immigration?

What about foreign nationals who live abroad but buy homes in the US for investment purposes? ICYMI: Canada realized this was ruining their housing market and has taken steps to address it. Too little too late once people and corporations own property, but at least they got the memo.

Building more affordable housing is important, but it’s an exercise in futility unless there are strict restrictions on who can buy the housing and who must actually live there. The MoCo MPDU approach is one example (not perfect, but better than nothing).

completely agree- foreigners are buying up american property forcing americans living and working here to pay them rent, thus removing that income from the USA plus forcing americans to be impoverished to the benefit of foreign, non resident investors. Housing is NOT primarily an investment vehicle, its one if the functions of government to protect the ability of its citizens to pursue property but apparently our gvernet thinks thomas jefferson, ben frankin et. al were dumber than ted cruz, josh hawley and elizabeth warren (eyeroll) they ALL suck.

[Anonymous]

There are a lot of housing options at all different price ranges around DC. You can find affordability in PG if being close to DC is a priority. If being close to PG is not a priority, then you can look in Frederick County or PW county.

Plenty of options and choices to make.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In 2023, investors accounted for 27% of all single-family home purchases. Blackstone and American Homes 4 Rent are particularly active acquirers.

Source?

https://www.corelogic.com/intelligence/us-home-investor-share-remained-high-early-summer-2023/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Solutions to "crisis":

-- Ban foreign ownership of real estate
-- Eliminate all federal tax deductions on homes that aren't people's primary residences

Once you realize that our country is set up to benefit corporations and the wealthy, you'll realize that the "crisis" is intentional and works to their benefit.

Because corporations are people ?